Captain Chowta Calls on NHAI to Construct Omitted Bannadka Service Road on NH 169 Amid Rising Accidents

The recently inaugurated four‑lane thoroughfare connecting Bikarnakatte to Sanur, designated as National Highway 169, has become a vital conduit for commercial traffic, daily commuters, and regional trade within the district of Dakshina Kannada. Yet, an inconspicuous omission in the infrastructure, namely the absent service road linking the principal carriageway to the minor settlement of Bannadka, has persisted unnoticed by planners, despite its acknowledged necessity for safe ingress and egress. The consequences of this lacuna have unfurled in a succession of vehicular mishaps, some fatal and many non‑fatal, that have drawn the attention of both local families and the broader public sphere to the perils inherent in the current configuration.

In a formal missive dated the first week of May, Captain B. Chowta, serving concurrently as the elected Member of Parliament for the constituency and as a retired officer of the state militia, appealed directly to the National Highways Authority of India for immediate remedial action to construct the deficient service road segment. He underscored that the absent conduit not only contravenes the design principles promulgated by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways but also imposes an unreasonable burden upon motorists who are compelled to negotiate hazardous detours on adjoining thoroughfares lacking adequate signage or safety barriers. Moreover, the Captain invoked recent statistical reports indicating that, since the opening of the main carriageway, the number of collisions within a kilometre radius of the missing link has risen by an estimated thirty‑seven percent, thereby constituting a palpable threat to public safety.

The National Highways Authority, in a terse response circulated to the press on the fifteenth of May, acknowledged receipt of the communication but deferred substantive deliberation pending the completion of a departmental field survey, a procedural step that, critics argue, has been unduly protracted in the face of evident danger. Local civic bodies, including the Dakshina Kannada Municipal Council and the District Road Safety Committee, have independently voiced concern, noting that the absence of a service road forces heavy trucks to encroach upon residential lanes, thereby elevating noise, pollution, and the probability of pedestrian injury. Residents of the hamlet of Bannadka, whose quotidian routines now entail perilous crossings of unmarked debris‑laden shoulders, have lodged formal grievances with the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, thereby initiating a judicial avenue that may compel the central authority to honor its statutory obligations under the National Highways Act of 1956.

In light of these circumstances, Captain Chowta has reiterated his call for the expeditious erection of a concrete‑sanded service lane, a project projected to cost no more than two crore rupees, a sum he contends is modest when weighed against the human cost of continued negligence. He urged the authority to invoke the emergency provisions contained within Section 36 of the aforementioned Act, which permits immediate remedial measures upon demonstration of imminent danger to public life and property, thereby obviating the need for prolonged bureaucratic deliberations.

The persistence of the Bannadka service‑road omission, despite the existence of statutory mechanisms designed to guarantee uninterrupted access and safety on national thoroughfares, invites scrutiny of the procedural diligence exercised by the central highway bureaucracy. Moreover, the incremental accumulation of accident reports, each bearing the imprint of preventable human error amplified by infrastructural inadequacy, underscores a potential breach of the duty of care owed by the State to its road‑using populace. Should the National Highways Authority be compelled, under the proviso of Section 36 of the National Highways Act, to initiate immediate remedial construction when credible evidence demonstrates that the lack of a service road materially elevates the probability of fatal collisions on an operational four‑lane corridor? Is there, within the administrative framework governing infrastructure projects, an enforceable accountability clause that obliges the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to allocate emergency funding for such life‑saving works, thereby preventing the recurrence of avoidable injuries and mortalities?

The chronic delay in sanctioning the Bannadka link, despite documented community petitions and parliamentary intercessions, may reflect an entrenched opacity within inter‑departmental coordination that contravenes the transparency mandates articulated in the Right to Information Act. Furthermore, the fiscal allocation records for the NH 169 project, as disclosed in the latest audit report, reveal a discrepancy between earmarked expenditures for auxiliary works and the actual disbursements, thereby raising doubts about financial stewardship and the efficacy of oversight mechanisms. Can the statutory provisions governing public procurement be invoked to compel an independent forensic audit of the NH 169 capital outlays, thereby ensuring that misallocation of funds does not perpetuate infrastructural shortcomings that jeopardize citizen safety? Is there a legal prerequisite under the Public Liability Insurance Act that obliges the State to compensate victims of accidents arising from known infrastructural defects, and if so, why have such redressal mechanisms remained dormant in the case of the Bannadka incident series? Might the judiciary, upon receipt of the pending petitions before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, be empowered to order interim injunctive relief mandating the immediate construction of the service road, thereby preempting further loss of life pending final adjudication?

Published: May 17, 2026

Published: May 17, 2026